Need some hardware recommendations

[dimwit]

Hey all, I'm new to the board and I'm embarking on my first server-building journey, so please excuse any incompetence! I've spent some time browsing the board and there's gobs of great info here. Props to the forum. I've built plenty of desktops and workstations so I feel pretty good about making this thing happen. What I'm not sure about it what hardware and software I'll need for this particular project.

We're developing a web-based Employee training database for 6 different sites around the country maintaining approximately 800 employees (probably closer to 5000 total when considering turnover for the past 6 years). Ideally 20-30 people will be able to enter records and run reports through a web interface. All that being said, I've talked to several sales people (which might be part of the problem) and the recommendation I received was the Snap Server 4500 by Snap Appliance/Adaptec. I was hoping to just build the server myself but when I brought that up I was made to feel a little silly.

I'm also not sure if I should use MS SQL server 2000 or Oracle 10g. From what I've heard, Oracle is more robust but at the same time it might also be overkill, especially when considering the price tag.

Any advice would be most appreciated! Thanks.

 

[Bozo]

From my experiance, SQL server uses gobs of memory. I would figure at least 2GB of ECC memory.

Bozo :mrgrn:

 

[Handruin]

Welcome!

You've mentioned building a server, however you referenced a storage based array by snap appliance. Are you looking to build a server with internal storage, or are you looking to build your own type of array? I'm a bit biased about my large system storage arrays, so if asked I'd say go EMC (but I'm not in sales so don't take that the wrong way). With any large scale project, you'll need to convince your management that uptime and reliability are key. What type of plan do you have to safeguard your data, irregardless of the database engine and platform? How large does your initial storage need to be?

Are you looking to build a windows server, or a unix based setup? I assume windows because you mentioned MS SQL server. If you are going to use windows, you may even want to consider a MSCS cluster solution (which could be considered overkill). MS SQL server is a cluster-aware product and has worked well in the past in my lab (keep in mind I only used it for test without live data). You could setup an active/active cluster and use the backup node to run reports, there-by reducing the traffic load on your production server. If you had an EMC symmetrix, you can use the timefinder software to help manage database reporting and scheduled backups with minimal performance loss. I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that if Oracle is considered to be overkill, then so is a symmetrix. You may also want to look into a clariion AX series for a SATA solution that is expandable.

Are the six locations around the country going to share one database, or do you have plans to distribute the load by location by offering multiple databases that are replicated?

 

[dimwit]

Hey, thanks for the response. I'm going to apologize upfront. Like I said in the original post, I've never put anything like this together before so I'm a little unsure of what exactly I need. This whole thing is starting from the ground up so maybe what I'm asking for is, based on the description of my project above, what are some recommendations on how to go about putting this thing together. I've got a budget of about $10,000 although if it worked its way up to 20K, I might still be ok as long as I could justify it.

To answer a few of the questions:
Windows 2003 server standard edition
At least 1Tb of storage space (with the ability to expand later if necessary)
2 Gb of memory for sure
All 6 sites will be sharing one database

I'm not sure what the difference between a storage based array and a server is, and I'm actually reading up on raid arrays now.

I also did some reading on Active directory and am very interested in employing that also.
HTH

 

[time]

Whoa! Your requirements description sounds like only a modest database application. But then you talk about a terabyte of storage!

What gives? Are you planning to use the server for something else?

MS SQL server takes over your server and tries to cache everything, so it's normal to keep it on a separate box to the web server. However, in your case I doubt that's it's necessary. As a rule of thumb, spec RAM to at least double the actual data size of the largest table. If this isn't feasible, you'd be better off with a different DBMS.

Oracle needs a lot more tuning than MS SQL server, typically by an Oracle DBA. However, it is vastly more competent with large databases. If the application is reasonably written and Oracle is tuned correctly, it doesn't need anywhere near as much RAM as MS SQL server.

Licensing is a bitch with either. A single CPU Oracle license (needed for a web app) was >$6k the last time I looked. With the M$ solution you're looking at, you pay twice for each connection - once for the DBMS and again for Windoze (Oracle and every other DBMS I can think of will run on an OS other than Windoze, eg Linux).

 

[Bozo]

Actually it sounds like you need to build two servers. They could be run as a cluster ( Sever 2003 needs the corrct hardware for this), distributed file system, or two servers using file replication with one being the backup server.
If you need 1Tb of storage space, the cost effective route is SATA, but then that rules out clustering with Server 2003. (must be SCSI)
File replication can really chew up your network resources. I set ours up using a separate Gb NIC in each server with a crossover cable between them. The "work" network only handles work traffic.

Bozo :mrgrn:

 

[Handruin]

The storage array I spoke of is independent of any host. So is the snap server that was recommended to you. You would typically connect to this array via SCSI cable, fibre channel, or even iSCSI.

I priced out a basic EMC AX100SP from dell with what you would need and it alone was $7000. So I'm guessing this isn't the right path for your project.

I would have significant concerns about the protection of your data with the budget you've been given. $10,000 barely gets you the software, never mind storage with any level of protection. Your requirements have 6 sites using a web based application along with possibly 20-30 users running reports could be murder to system performance on a single host.

Microsoft SQL Server 2000 Standard Edition (supports up to 2 gigabytes (GB) of RAM )
$2,249 US with 10 CALs

(I can't find how much additional CAL's cost. Microsoft recommends buying CAL's until you have 53 users. From there they recommend the "per processor" license.)

I need to step back for a minute and ask, what is the architectural design of this web based application? The reason I ask is that you specifically mention a windows 2003 setup, and possibly SQL server. Is the web based application being developed using a technology that requires those components (ie ASP.net or C#)? Could your project be bettered served by using a more open solution such as java (jsp pages), or PHP on a unix platform such as Redhat enterprise linux ES ($349) with Oracle?

If windows is required, you can split the responsibilities of web server and database server so that the web server runs windows 2003, and the database server runs some form of Unix with Oracle.

 

[time]

Your requirements have 6 sites using a web based application along with possibly 20-30 users running reports could be murder to system performance on a single host.

Ideally 20-30 people will be able to enter records and run reports through a web interface.

The numbers appear to be across all sites. Further, I suspect he doesn't mean those 20-30 users are actually updating or running queries all at the same time.

Bozo, what have you been smoking? dimwit didn't say this was a mission-critical application (it's hard to imagine how it could be) and there just isn't the load to justify a cluster for performance reasons.

Handruin is right to ask about architecture. And I'd still like to know what the terabyte of storage is for. :-?

 

[dimwit]

Concerning the Tb of storage, that's what was recommended by the same sales rep that recommended the snap server. After further research online I think they might be pissing with me a little. It seemed like overkill but call me naive, heh. As far as 20-30 peeps using this thing, I only anticipate maybe 5-7 users ever being on at the same time.

I have no experience with Java or unix but some with asp, so unfortunately I'll probably be leaning toward MS. Hopefully that will change one day!

Ultimately I believe that this will turn into something much larger than just an employee database, but that would be much further down the road. I'd like to have some scalability with it but would it be better to just build somewhat of a smaller "tower server" as in like just a glorified workstation?

What's everyone's opinion concerning RAID. I don't think I want to go with RAID0, so I'm leaning toward 0+1/1+0 or 5. I need a little bit of clarification with the difference between 0+1 and 1+0. Also, with regards to the licensing, I keep seeing reference to CALs, I'm not familiar with what that terminology means.

Thanks all for the comments, it's really helping me get a better idea of what I'm doing.

 

[Bozo]

Time: I'm just going through all the options. Besides, it sounds like this is some sort of business. You can't make money if your employees are sitting around waiting on the server to come back online.

As far a RAID goes, RAID 5 is the most cost effective way of having a large amount of storage with redundancy.

Check here: http://www.acnc.com/04_01_00.html


Bozo :mrgrn: